Just wondering if MDD would be still around and the MD 12 would have been build would all the hardcore Boeing fans complaining about this hideous aircraft like they do now about the A380 and would all the die hard Airbus fans that defend the A380 no matter what would do the same with the MD 12 ?
Also what airlines would have gone for the MD 12. Would we see AF and LH operating it (if there would be no A380 instead) and would ANA and JAL have ordered it ?

I consider myself as an aviation enthusiast and airliner fan and really have no understanding about all this A vs B nonsense.

It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong

Most likely if the MD-12 has launched, Boeing would have responded much the same way they did with the A3XX/A380, with revised 747 models. I do not believe they would have gone forward with the NLA program.

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 1):Curious what engines it would have back then.

Quoting Columba (Thread starter):Just wondering if MDD would be still around and the MD 12 would have been build would all the hardcore Boeing fans complaining about this hideous aircraft like they do now about the A380 and would all the die hard Airbus fans that defend the A380 no matter what would do the same with the MD 12 ?

I think that it is better looking than the A380.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 3):I thought I read somewhere (maybe A.Net forum) that McDonnell Douglas was losing money, and if Boeing wouldn't have bought them, they would have been out of business anyways. Is that true?

It is also possible that Airbus or some other aviation company would have bought MD. They tried to have partnership with Airbus and a Japanese company before Boeing bought them.

MD was making money on the military side, not much on the civil side that is why Boeing bought them. The land MD had in the Los Angeles area was worth too much to keep being used for aircraft manufacture. By the time Boeing bought them, the 3 engine DC-10/MD-11 was pretty much obsolete, the DC-9/MD-80/717 was pretty much obsolete too in many people's eyes. MD really had no 'midsized' 2 engine like the A-300 or 767 series. Most airlines want to deal with the fewest number of manufactures and MD didn't really offer the range of a/c they need to stick to fewer companies.
Unless they used the engines developed for the A-380 in the mid-1990's, the idea of it wouldn't have flown. MD probably wouldn't have attracted the investment needed and foreign companies would have been limited due the to military side. I also suspect that the world would not have been ready for a MD-12 by the mid to late 1990's, so if they developed it, assuming they could have afforded it, it may have been obsolete quickly and having less than desirable performance due the new materials and so on we have now have.

Quoting JAM747 (Reply 4):Quoting Columba (Thread starter):Just wondering if MDD would be still around and the MD 12 would have been build would all the hardcore Boeing fans complaining about this hideous aircraft like they do now about the A380 and would all the die hard Airbus fans that defend the A380 no matter what would do the same with the MD 12 ?
I think that it is better looking than the A380.

And the reason is simple, while the 747 has it's cockpit on the upper deck and looks like an ugly chimp and the A380 has the cockpit on the lower deck and looks rather like a ugly alien, the MD concept seems to have had the cockpit in the middle between the decks waisting revenue space on both decks obviously only to make the study look proportionate.

Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22

Boeing would have been forced to pull the 2707 plans off the shelf. Those wanting bargain basement priced tickets would be flying the MD-12, those willing to fly business class or higher would be flying supersonic.

Isn't it awful when reality gets in the way of fantasy?

"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero

IMHO The A380 seems more finished and up to date than the MD-12 pictures. However, it seems that the smaller seating capacity would have made more sense in the current market situation. With a direct competitor to the 747-400/-8 and a stretch model that would be in the same size as the current A380.

Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas

If the government is so concerned about "antitrust" issues these days, they should never have allowed Boeing to buy McDonnell Douglas. McDD was not going to fail. The govt created a monopoly there, as blatant as could be.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 5):Unless they used the engines developed for the A-380 in the mid-1990's, the idea of it wouldn't have flown. MD probably wouldn't have attracted the investment needed and foreign companies would have been limited due the to military side. I also suspect that the world would not have been ready for a MD-12 by the mid to late 1990's, so if they developed it, assuming they could have afforded it, it may have been obsolete quickly and having less than desirable performance due the new materials and so on we have now have.

Actually, the 777 engines are more than powerful enough to have flown the MD-12....

Quoting Columba (Thread starter):Just wondering if MDD would be still around and the MD 12 would have been build

The fact that MDD did not get the plane beyond the concept stage speaks volumes about the market for a VLA. Although MDD was making money, that was due primarily to its defense business. Its commercial side had stagnated and it was looking to jump-start it by proposing the MD-12. Unfortunately, it couldn't convince investors that the market was big enough to provide a reasonable ROI and the project languished.

Quoting JAM747 (Reply 4):I think that it is better looking than the A380

Had it moved to the design stage I'm sure it would have come out looking quite different than the illustrations you see and more like the A380. Aircraft in conceptual form usually reflect a heavy dose of imagination because they have not been exposed to the rigors of detailed engineering design and testing as well as manufacturing costs.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 3):I thought I read somewhere (maybe A.Net forum) that McDonnell Douglas was losing money, and if Boeing wouldn't have bought them, they would have been out of business anyways. Is that true?

Douglas built aircraft with antiquated technology. I was there, believe me, it's true. I went to work one Saturday to do QA on an MD11 fuselage section join. They were lining up the hull sections with a laser device and when I admired it they said it was a lot nicer than the level and transit they'd ben using the week before. The sections were supported on screw jacks that ran on rails in the floor. When one had to come up or down a mechanic went out and whanged the screw jack with a hammer. Then they'd drill holes and shoot fasteners manually. I got home and watched a PBS special on Airbus and they were doing a completely automated fuselage join, including drilling and shooting the fasteners. I knew right then my beloved Douglas was doomed and I started planning for the layoffs that were a few years in the future.

Paradoxically, the engineering had to be more conservative to make up for the weaknesses in the production process, so they were built with butted skin splices and forged doublers, rather than the more common clinker built Boeings.

Quoting BR076 (Reply 17):And that is why? Let me guess because it would be a superior American product lol

You, sir, are 100 per cent right, for once. See, even a European gets it occasionally.

If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn

Quoting N231YE (Reply 3):I thought I read somewhere (maybe A.Net forum) that McDonnell Douglas was losing money, and if Boeing wouldn't have bought them, they would have been out of business anyways. Is that true?

That is true, but as mentioned, it was only the civil aircraft that were losing money. If they shut down their commercial aircraft factories and only built military aircraft like Lockheed they could probably have survived. If McDonnell Douglas continued and was able to finance a MD12, it would probably have been a twin engine type. Most of the four engine aircraft now are headed for freight service and who knows what will happen with the A380.

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 11):If the government is so concerned about "antitrust" issues these days, they should never have allowed Boeing to buy McDonnell Douglas. McDD was not going to fail. The govt created a monopoly there, as blatant as could be.

By the mid nineties MD was preety a much done as a commercial aircraft producer. In addition by that time Airbus had surpased MD as Boeing's biggest competitor. So in essence the government created a duopoly. On the military side Boeing still has to compete with the likes of Lockheed and Northrup Grumman. No monopoly there.

As for MD failing you must remember that they still had military production. The C-17, F-15, F-18 and T-45. Then there was the rocket side of the house.

Quoting Columba (Thread starter):I consider myself as an aviation enthusiast and airliner fan and really have no understanding about all this A vs B nonsense.

With all due respect this smacks of conceit and superiority and perhaps a bit neive as well. There are many shades of blue in the world, I imagine there are just as many shades of "Aviation Enthusiasts and airliner fans". B/C I prefer a certain manufacturer over another does not diminish my enthusiasm for aircraft, And if I prefer AA to LH it also does not make me less of an airliner fan than you. Perhaps it has something to do with precision. Precision and engineering as well as pride in what one does. Perhaps that is something you can understand. There is a difference between BMW and a Trabant. Now to ask a true Trabant aficionado that he like a BMW more than his car or he is less of an auto enthusiast is foolish and also wrong. I understand that an example is not the way to convince you, but I hope to stir your sentiments and perhaps make you see, as well as others, that for me to like a certain aircraft manufacturer (only) is as natural as for you to like ALL aircraft manufacturers (that is what you were trying to say right?). The sky is no less blue nor less Bernoulli's equations less elegant to me or to you because of my point of view. One can look at things a bit differently i.e the first is just cross section/transition probability in quantum mechanics and the other is a boundary value hydrodynamic eq.

You know the argument can be made that the 380 whalejet is a really bad idea for eads and so ultimately it will hurt eads which in turn will hurt aviation in general. One may or may not agree with the above premise but if one does then a TRUE aviation enthusiast and airline fan would insist on fighting against the construction of the 380. This could be his badge of honor. Fighting for what is right! Yes I can see how Antoine de Saint-Exupéry would come from the heavens and anoint those that fight against the 380 as a righteous man who is truly his brothers keeper! And he dressed in full regalia, leather jacket, old style aviation goggles and calfskin gloves would annoint such a man as "A TRUE Aviation Enthusiast"...

Sigh.

Anyway back to your post. I think that if McD was still in the business of making passenger birds they would have rejected the MD12 as a nifty idea but one with a limited market and so would not have built it. They probably would have gone with a replacement fro the MD11, 2 engine.. ALA 777/330... And if they did not, I as a TRUE aviation enthusiast would be speaking against it... Awaiting St. Exupéry to come down and help me strike those that would attempt to poison and destroy our brethren (aviation in general).

Just my 2c !

Respectfully

Elvis777

Oh yeah: Peace.

Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 21):There are many shades of blue in the world, I imagine there are just as many shades of "Aviation Enthusiasts and airliner fans". B/C I prefer a certain manufacturer over another does not diminish my enthusiasm for aircraft,

While I won't go as far as saying "naive", "conceit" or "superiority"...I too have a preference for certain planes (quite obvious.. ), that doesn't mean I don't love other planes too...

Even if MDD was making tones of money they would have had to join in an alliance with Boeing or Airbus. They simply didn't have the economy of scale and deep pockets of the other two. It would be interesting to see Belugas taking sub assemblies to TLS for MDD!

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 5):MD really had no 'midsized' 2 engine like the A-300 or 767 series.

I thought I had recalled some discussion about making the MD-11 a twin rather than a triple, then I checked back and found a couple of skeptical articles from just after Boeing introduced the 7X7 (later to become the T7) questioning the viability and acceptance of a long-range twin.

I see your point but let me explain how I see it. I like airplanes -not companies-I prefer some airplanes from Airbus over Boeing and some Boeings over Airbus.
Not because they are A vs B made because I think this particular aircraft is better.
If you see some posts here on a.net they just cheer for one group of aircraft and miss the ability to honor the achievments of the other group.

Airbus, Boeing, MDD, Lockheed, Tupolev, Iljuschin and all the other smaller and bigger companies have build so many marevellous pieces of engineering that it would be unfair just to cheer for one team !!

It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong

Quoting PEK18R36L (Reply 24):Did MD ever consider two blowers on the MD-11 rather than 3?

Good question. They did consider two engines for the original DC-10, but later decided to go with a trijet instead of a twin.

Granted, in the late 60s when the DC-10 (along with the L-1011) was still being designed, ETOPS was still in its infant years and highly restrictive. However, given the introduction of the A300, the success of overwater operations on 767s and the introducing of ETOPS 120, 138 and 180, there could have been a market for a twinjet MD-11, but I guess Douglas chose to go with building the MD-11 (which I believe was designated with the codename DC-10-63 before the launch of the programme, correct me if I'm wrong though) as a modernised stretch of the DC-10.

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 11):If the government is so concerned about "antitrust" issues these days, they should never have allowed Boeing to buy McDonnell Douglas. McDD was not going to fail. The govt created a monopoly there, as blatant as could be.

I agree with you. As an airliner enthusiast, I look at this as the final nail in the coffin as the end of an era that featured all the classic jets. Now for the most part all we have is monotonous Boeing and Airbus twinjets. Maybe the government did not realize it was a takeover in disguise since it was announced as a merger, or maybe they didn't care. Either way it is a shame.

And I do believe McDD would have succeeded on some level. The MD-95 certainly would have taken a lot of the ERJ sales at the very least and I think the MD-90s also would have been more successful if the development of the aircraft and its variations continued. The MD-11 is another story although surely more of them would have been built for freight. Despite what the Boeing purists say, McDD could have survived, just not in the same league as the big two.